Category: Uncategorized (Page 2 of 3)

Ashley Levesque

ENG110I

Introduction:

In my introduction I changed a lot. I mainly focused on adding more background information in to prepare the reader for the rest of the paper. I did not change the opening sentence though because I wanted to start off with a brief understanding of discourses. I did however change my thesis and made it more clear and understandable.

Evidence and explanations:

Some areas where I made big changes are towards the end of my first body paragraph where I talk about Gee and discourses. I changed this because I felt it was very blunt and had little transition to IMRaD. Another area that I changed a lot was the third body paragraph where I discuss Haas and her experiment on Eliza. I understood my writing but the information in the paragraph seemed to be confusing to others who have little knowledge on how Eliza connected to IMRaD so I clarified.

Reorganization:

I didn’t do much rearranging for this essay. I mostly added more information and reworded for clarification.

New paragraphs:

There were no new paragraphs in this essay compared to the first draft. I just added new information for clarification.

Part 2 is on google docs in the comments..

Ashley Levesque

ENG110l

1. A science discourse is a discourse that focuses on the doing and being of all things science. (This is coordinate because the and signals the switch of the doing and being of science.)
2. Gee believes that a discourse cannot be taught but must be done in order to officially learn or master it. (This is coordinate because the but signals the switch from Gee expressing the importance of discourse to the importance of it must be done.)
3. IMRaD helps break down the process of writing a paper, connecting text and evidence to come to a result and or conclusion. (This is coordinate because the and signals the switch from connecting text to using evidence to getting a result.)

Subordinate:

1. Although it can be difficult to learn and master the discourse of scientific writing there are tools to help guide one such as the IMRaD cheat sheet. (This is subordinate because the although signals that learning to read and master discourses is important.)

        2. This specifically relates to the discourse of science because in order to be in a science         discourse you must exhibit the actions, saying, and doings of that discourse. (This is           subordinate because the because in this sentence signals the switch from the relation to science to the importance of the actions, beings and doings of science.)

Ashley Levesque

Revise 1-2 paragraphs

ENG110l

Original:

Christina Haas shows a relation to the IMRaD cheat sheet when she conducted an experiment on college students to see the progress they made throughout their college experience. One of Haas’ subjects was named Eliza and she was a biology major. Haas was curious as to how Eliza would adapt to the discourse of science. “An extended 4-year examination of one student as she progresses during college, focusing primarily on how the student’s views of, and interactions with, disciplinary text changed through her postsecondary education” (Haas 46) Haas examined the changes in one of her subjects throughout her (eliza’s) undergraduate studies of science. During the beginning of the experiment, Haas noticed that Eliza was not exhibiting the discourse of science behaviors specifically in writing. Eliza initially exhibited the use of autonomous text (timeless entities functioning without contextual support from author, reader, or culture) rather than viewing it as a rhetorical text. Haas sheds light on the use of rhetorical frames when she states, “Elements of the rhetorical frame include participants and their relationships and motives, and several layers of context”(48). Haas is explaining that in order to understand a piece of writing you must read it in the context that the author puts it. Viewing the text without the context it was meant to be viewed is simply looking at it incorrectly. Writing is important in a scientific discourse as Haas’ states, “A great number of studies of science have focused on discourse – conversations and lab notes as well as conference presentations and formal articles…”(44). Haas is essentially stating that a majority of a science discourse can be explained through the writing and articles formed by those already in the discourse. In Haas’ study Eliza was viewing text as a means to simply answer questions rather than a deeper meaning and understanding that the author intended it to be. However, by the time Eliza left college she a greater understanding of scientific text and she had the ability to read text and view it as it was intended to be viewed rather than as autonomous. In order for Eliza to be able to be considered part of the discourse of science she must be able to write as a scientist would or in IMRaD format that explains the rhetorical frame.

Revised:

Christina Haas writer of Learning to read Biology shows a relation to the IMRaD cheat sheet and the discourse of science when she conducts an experiment on a college student to see the progress made throughout her college experience. This relation becomes prominent during her discussion of her subject Eliza. Eliza was an undergraduate student studying Biology and chemistry. Haas’ experiment can be explained as “An extended 4-year examination of one student as she progresses during college, focusing primarily on how the student’s views of, and interactions with, disciplinary text changed through her postsecondary education” (46) This specifically relates to the discourse of science because in order to be in a science discourse you must exhibit the actions, saying, and doings of that discourse. The use of IMRaD is a vessel in order to achieve the correct doings of scientific writing. For example when Haas initially examines Eliza she describes her as a student who “may have tacitly subscribed to the doctrine of autonomous texts early in her college career…” (46). Essentially Haas noticed that Eliza was not exhibiting the discourse of science behaviors specifically in writing. Eliza instead exhibited the use of autonomous text (timeless entities functioning without contextual support from author, reader, or culture) rather than viewing it as a rhetorical text. Haas sheds light on the use of rhetorical frames when she states, “Elements of the rhetorical frame include participants and their relationships and motives, and several layers of context”(48). Haas is explaining that in order to understand a piece of writing you must read it in the context that the author puts it. This shows that Eliza is not familiar with the Discourse of science since she is unable to find a deeper meaning behind the text. Writing is important in a scientific discourse as Haas’ states, “A great number of studies of science have focused on discourse – conversations and lab notes as well as conference presentations and formal articles…”(44). Haas is essentially stating that a majority of a science discourse can be explained through the writing and articles formed by those already in the discourse. In Haas’ study Eliza was viewing text as a means to simply answer questions rather than a deeper meaning and understanding that the author intended it to be. However, by the time Eliza left college she a greater understanding of scientific text and she had the ability to read text and view it as it was intended to be viewed rather than as autonomous. In order for Eliza to be able to be considered part of the discourse of science she must be able to write as a scientist would or in IMRaD format that explains the rhetorical frame.

Ashley Levesque

Revision Planning

ENG110l

1. I am working well explaining discourses and including information about Gee. I can apply more information about Gee’s discourses to help transition in to Haas’ experiment with Eliza.
2. I am doing a good job bringing in pieces of language about discourses in my first body paragraph where I discuss Gee and his theory of discourses. It is working well because I am already aware of Gee and his theory of discourses therefore I understand it well enough to write about it.
3. A paragraph that isn’t working well for me is my last body paragraph where I discuss Haas. I feel it is not working because the information I provided does not relate well with the topic of the paper which is IMRaD. I think to improve this I need to find good quotes I can relate to IMRaD and build off of those.
4. I believe my analysis is explaining how the IMRaD sheet is important in order to enter a science discourse because without knowing how to write scientifically you cannot be classified as part of the science discourse. Also it shows that perhaps if Eliza were to use the sheet initially she would have understood how to write scientifically sooner.

Ashley Levesque

Gee definition of discourses can be defined as a connected series of language whether it be words, values, body language, attitudes, clothing, or gestures. A discourse cannot be taught as stated by Gee however, you can be mentored in order to learn. Using the IMRaD cheat sheet it allows us to see what makes a good scientific paper. IMRaD helps break down the process of writing a paper and connecting text and evidence to come to a result and or conclusion. All these components can help form a strong scientific paper.

Haas’ article shows key points that relate to Gee and the IMraD cheat sheet. This includes discourses which relates back to Gee’s theory. Haas’ states, “A great number of studies of science have focused on discourse – conversations and lab notes as well as conference presentations and formal articles…”, this shows the incorporating of  Gee’s discourse and science. ENG110I

Gee’s Building Tasks for Discourse Analysis

Building Evidence for an Analysis of Science Discourse

Significance

“Disciplinary texts, like all texts, are intensely situated, rife with purpose and motive, anchored in myriad ways to the individuals and the cultures that produce them.” (Haas 44)

This passage reveals that Haas’ believes there is significance in disciplinary texts because they have a purpose and are written for a reason.

Practices (activities)

“Include negative data — what was not found — only if useful for interpreting the results” (Nair and Nair 20).

Nair and Nair state an important practice of writing results for a research paper. They stress the importance of including the information that was not found in order to help understand the results.

Identities

“Indicate the significance of the results.” (Nair and Nair 21).  

Nair and Nair are explaining that there are two different discourses to research results. They state only to use significant data. Therefore there must also be insignificant data which means there are at least to discourses to data.

Relationships

“Authors create texts and readers read texts in a complex of social relationships…” (Haas 44).

In this passage, we see that Haas is explaining that authors create text in order for readers to read the text in the context that the author puts it in.

Politics

“At a college level, to become literate is in many ways to learn the patterns of knowing about, and bahaving toward, texts within a disciplinary field” (Haas 43)

In Haas’ paper she uses information for Bartholomae, berkenkotter, huckin, and Ackerman to describe the importance of being literate. This shows that they all share a similar idea on how to become literate and the importance of it in order to obtain social goods.

Connections

“Include negative data — what was not found — only if useful for interpreting the results” (Nair and Nair 20).

This advice reveals the importance of linking data that was found to data that was not found. By doing this it shows a correlation that something didn’t occur because something else did.

Relationship to Gee

Relationship to Gee and Understand

Understand and expand

ENG110l

Ashley Levesque

1. In Haas’s opening statement she states the importance of understanding the larger idea of college writing and not just what the words are simply saying. She states “At the college level, to become literate is in many ways to learn the patterns of knowing about, and behaving toward, texts within a disciplinary field” (43). Hass is stating that all texts have a deeper meaning behind them and in order to understand it you must try to analyze the reason one is writing it.   
2. Haa’s describes autonomous text as, “autonomous texts views written academic texts as discrete, highly explicit, even ‘timeless’ entities functioning without contextual support from author, reader, or culture.” The myth of autonomous writing is that many mistake it as facts and do not attempt to uncover the deeper meaning behind it. However my only concern with this is that perhaps not all writing has a deeper meaning behind it and that perhaps some may even be over analyzed.
3. Haas’s study on Eliza shows that college is as Gee describes a “discourse”. Although Gee is not mentioned by Haas it can be connected because Eliza when first entering her major only had a basic understanding of the writing but as she progressed she had a greater understand similar to learning a discourse. Haas states, “although Eliza (a pseudonym) may have tacitly subscribed to the doctrine of autonomous texts early in her college career, by the time she left college she had come to a greater awareness of the rhetorical, contingent nature of both of the activities and discourses she participated in within her chosen field, biology,” (46). Haas is explaining that when you first enter a major you will only have a basic understanding but as you proceed you will leave with greater knowledge on the writing of that major.
4. A rhetorical frame as described by Haas are, “participants, their relationships and motives, and several layers of context” (48). The purpose of this is to help include the readers and allow them to break down the text and understand the deeper meaning behind it.
5. As stated above I connected Gee and Haas as a relationship in discourses. I saw similarities between the two during the study of Eliza. Gee emphasizes the importance of discourses and I believe a lot of what Haas describes requires some entry into such as a discourse.

ENG110l

Ashley Levesque

Sept 27, 2018

Introduction: In the introduction of my first draft I had good information but it wasn’t as beefed up or detailed as I liked. I then decided to go a little more in depth on Cuddy and Gee and what the overall paper was gonna be. I did this to help the reader understand what they were gonna be reading.

Evidence & Explanation: I also added more information and detail into my evidence and explanations for clarity purposes. For example I built off of my peers comments about where I needed to add more context or where I should elaborate. Most of my elaboration was on the paragraph where I connected Gee and Cuddy because it was wasn’t clear who was saying what.

Reorganization: I did quite a bit of reorganizing for clarity purposes as well. I found a few sentences that seemed to not belong where I initially had them so I moved them more towards a fitting section. For example I had some information about Gee that was in a Cuddy paragraph that seemed as if it would work better as a transition into Cuddy rather than in the middle of Cuddy.

New paragraphs: I added an extra paragraph right before my conclusion because I originally had a paragraph with information on the similarities between Gee and Cuddy that needed a lot of elaboration so I separated that information from the rest of the paragraph. By doing this I helped expand on the connections of Gee and Cuddy which also helped make it more clear as to what I was trying to say.

ENG110l

My first idea is the fact that Gee discredits himself and how that affects his credibility as a source. My new question is are his ideas on discourses credible? In gee’s first explanation of discourses he states that you are either in one or you’re not and that you have to be mentored by someone who has mastered the discourse. However he then discredits himself by stating that it is possible to mush fake your way into a discourse which means you do not have to fully be in one or mentored by someone. By Gee doing this he removes some of his credibility making it difficult to believe anything he says about discourses since he doesn’t appear to sure of himself. This leads me to lean more towards Cuddy and not Gee. This leads me into my second idea which is since Cuddy isn’t talking about discourses is there a possibility we are just looking into the both of them too much and over analyzing? Cuddy never actually states anything about discourses so this leads me to believe perhaps the two are not connected at all. Gee talks about discourses and how to enter them by Cuddy simply talks about body language and faking it till you make it. This leads me to believe they have no true connection of ideas and we are simply over analyzing the two texts.

ENG101I